What Is DGL? Deglycyrrhizinated Liquorice (Mulethi), Explained

The old wisdom of Yashtimadhu, understood through modern botanical science.

DGL stands for deglycyrrhizinated liquorice, which simply means that we begin with liquorice root, Glycyrrhiza glabra — known throughout India as mulethi, and in Ayurveda as Yashtimadhu — and substantially reduce one of its naturally occurring compounds, called glycyrrhizin.

It sounds like a small alteration, yet it changes something important.

Glycyrrhizin gives liquorice much of its unmistakable sweetness, but it is also the compound behind many of the cautions associated with taking significant amounts of whole liquorice regularly, which is why DGL was developed in the first place.

So DGL is not another herb, it is not “stronger mulethi”, and it is certainly not a modern replacement for an ancient botanical.

It is simply the same old root, prepared differently for a different purpose.

And once you understand that, most of the mystery disappears.

What exactly is DGL?

Liquorice root is a remarkably complex botanical, not because it contains one miraculous substance, but because it contains many naturally occurring compounds — among them flavonoids, chalcones, polysaccharides and glycyrrhizin — that together make up the character of the plant.

Glycyrrhizin is perhaps the easiest of these to recognise because it contributes so much of liquorice’s familiar sweetness, but it has also received considerable scientific attention because repeated or substantial intake can affect the body’s regulation of sodium, potassium and fluid balance.

DGL is produced by processing liquorice root so that the glycyrrhizin content is greatly reduced.

It is useful to understand one small detail here: deglycyrrhizinated does not necessarily mean that every last trace of glycyrrhizin has disappeared. Health Canada’s current guidance, for example, describes deglycyrrhizinated liquorice as containing less than 3% glycyrrhizin.

What remains is still liquorice-root extract, containing other naturally occurring components of the botanical.

So if you want one sentence to remember, let it be this:

DGL is mulethi with one of its principal limiting compounds substantially reduced.

Why remove glycyrrhizin?

Here it helps to remember something that experienced doctors, pharmacists and herbal practitioners have known for a very long time: a substance can be valuable and still deserve respect, because biology rarely divides itself neatly into things that are entirely “good” and things that are entirely “bad”.

Glycyrrhizin is a good example.

When meaningful amounts are taken repeatedly, especially by someone who is sensitive to it, compounds produced during its metabolism can interfere with an enzyme involved in regulating the action of cortisol, and this may lead the body to retain sodium and water while losing potassium.

This does not mean that liquorice should suddenly be feared, and it certainly does not mean that every traditional preparation containing mulethi carries the same concern.

It means something far more sensible:

the amount matters, the frequency matters, the preparation matters, and the person taking it matters too.

The logic behind DGL is therefore quite elegant.

Instead of simply asking how much glycyrrhizin a person can comfortably consume, the preparation substantially reduces the glycyrrhizin before the extract reaches them.

It is a modern formulation answer to a very old botanical.

So how is DGL thought to work?

This is probably the most useful misunderstanding to clear up, because people often assume that anything associated with heartburn or upper digestive discomfort must work by reducing stomach acid.

DGL is not an antacid, and it is not designed to suppress the production of stomach acid in the way acid-suppressing medicines do.

Instead, research around liquorice preparations has looked more closely at the protective side of digestive physiology, including mucus secretion, mucosal integrity, blood flow and the natural renewal of the cells that form the stomach lining.

If you prefer a simple picture, imagine the stomach as a room containing a naturally strong chemical environment.

One approach is to change the chemistry inside the room.

Another is to support the walls that protect it.

DGL has been studied more in relation to that second idea.

That does not make it better or worse; it simply means that the mechanism being discussed is different, and therefore the language used to describe it should also be different.

The Amsarveda view: tradition and science do not need to compete

After working with botanicals for long enough, you begin to notice an odd habit in modern wellness: we tend either to romanticise a plant because it has been used for centuries, as though age alone proves every modern claim made for it, or we reduce that same plant to one fashionable molecule, as though everything else it contains became irrelevant the moment a laboratory learned how to measure one constituent.

We believe both approaches lose something important.

A plant is not valuable simply because it is ancient, and it does not become intelligent only when science gives one of its molecules a name.

Ayurveda offers generations of observation, an understanding of how plants were selected, prepared, combined and considered in relation to the whole person rather than merely as isolated chemical events.

Modern science offers another kind of clarity, allowing us to ask what is actually present in an extract, how much is there, what changes when one component is reduced, whether one batch resembles another, and whether an expected effect survives the discipline of controlled research.

We need both forms of curiosity.

This is why DGL interests us.

It does not prove that modern extraction is “better” than traditional Yashtimadhu, just as the long history of Yashtimadhu does not mean that every modern claim made about liquorice should automatically be accepted.

Instead, it presents a far more interesting question:

Which part of this plant limits the way we can use it, what happens when we substantially reduce that part, and what remains afterwards?

That is the kind of question that has guided Amsarveda’s approach to botanical formulation.

We do not want to turn Ayurveda into pharmacology, nor do we want to use tradition as a substitute for evidence.

We want to understand the intelligence already present in a plant, preserve what deserves preserving, measure what can be measured, and remain modest about what we still do not know.

That is what we mean by Decoding Botanical Intelligence Since 1963.

DGL vs Yashtimadhu: which one is better?

It is a natural question, but perhaps not the best one.

Whole-root Yashtimadhu retains the botanical essentially as nature provides it, including naturally occurring glycyrrhizin and the characteristic sweetness that comes with it.

DGL begins with the same root but substantially reduces the glycyrrhizin.

Neither one is automatically superior.

Neither should be thought of as the “stronger” or “upgraded” version.

And modern DGL should certainly not be presented as science correcting a mistake made by traditional Ayurveda.

They are simply two different ways of working with the same botanical.

Whole-root Yashtimadhu stays closer to the form described in classical Ayurvedic practice, while DGL is a modern extract designed around substantially reduced glycyrrhizin exposure.

So perhaps the better question is not: Which one is better?

It is: Which preparation makes sense for the way I intend to use it?

That question usually brings us much closer to a useful answer.

What should you look for on a DGL label?

Here I would encourage you to become a slightly more curious consumer, because the front of a supplement bottle often tells you what an ingredient is called while saying considerably less about what is actually inside.

First, look at the amount of extract.

“Liquorice extract 500 mg”, for example, gives you a quantity, but it does not by itself tell you how concentrated the extract is, how it was produced, or how consistently one batch resembles another.

Then ask how glycyrrhizin has been controlled.

Deglycyrrhizination is something that can be measured, so if an extract is described as DGL, the manufacturer should understand the specification being used and how the glycyrrhizin level is controlled.

Finally, look for evidence of standardisation.

Depending on the extract, this may include measuring marker compounds such as glabridin or total flavonoids, not because a single marker explains the whole intelligence of a botanical, but because measurement gives the manufacturer a way to check whether one batch resembles the next.

And perhaps this is one of the most valuable contributions modern botanical manufacturing has made.

Instead of simply saying: “We believe the plant contains this.”

We can increasingly ask: “Did we measure it?”

Why manufacturing matters more than most people realise

Two capsules can carry exactly the same plant name on the front and still be quite different products, because the ingredient name tells you where the story begins, not where it ends.

You would also want to know where the raw botanical came from, which part of the plant was used, how it was extracted, what was removed, what remained, how the extract was tested, and whether the finished batch actually met the specification promised by the manufacturer.

This is where manufacturing knowledge quietly becomes more important than fashionable ingredient names.

Amsarveda’s manufacturing operation works from GMP-certified facilities and has decades of experience extracting hundreds of botanicals; the current Amsarveda site describes two GMP-certified facilities spanning 160,000 square feet.

We do not want to know only what a botanical is called.

We want to know what is actually inside it, what has been retained, what has been removed, and how consistently that quality can be reproduced from one batch to the next.

That is botanical intelligence made accountable.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is DGL the same as liquorice, licorice or mulethi?

They all begin with the same plant, Glycyrrhiza glabra.

Liquorice is the British spelling and licorice the common American spelling; mulethi is a widely used Indian name for the root, while Yashtimadhu is its Sanskrit and Ayurvedic name.

DGL is a processed preparation made from that same root in which the glycyrrhizin has been substantially reduced.

Is DGL completely glycyrrhizin-free?

Not necessarily.

“Deglycyrrhizinated” means that the glycyrrhizin content has been greatly reduced rather than necessarily removed to absolute zero, which is why a clear specification is often more informative than a reassuring phrase on the front of a package

How quickly might you notice a difference?

The controlled trials discussed above evaluated changes over approximately 14 to 30 days, rather than within a few hours.

This does not mean everyone will notice a difference within the same timeframe, but it does remind us that DGL should not be thought of as an instant antacid.

Should I choose DGL or Yashtimadhu?

Begin with the reason you want to use liquorice rather than with the question of which preparation sounds stronger.

Whole-root Yashtimadhu stays closer to the form traditionally used in Ayurveda and retains naturally occurring glycyrrhizin, while DGL is a modern preparation in which glycyrrhizin has been substantially reduced.

Neither needs to defeat the other.

They are simply two different expressions of the same remarkable plant, and understanding that difference allows us to choose with more intelligence rather than more enthusiasm.